Giving the word “controversial” a new meaning

There are many ways to tell if someone is lying. One way is when they take a word that you know how to use and use it in a way that makes no sense. In this case, the word being tortured is controversial.

It’s getting to the point where when certain words are used, I stop reading. I move on to something else. That is because these words are basically part of a lame bullshit campaign. Words include: bias (unless you are speaking of deviation of data from an experiment from the actual value) and Islamofascist (a word that makes no sense kind of like circular square’; if you hate Islam–I don’t–grow a set and just say it).

In this case they fired a professor for saying a milder form of what I have been blogging about <a href=”http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/25930754.html”&gt; the Bible was the work of both humans and God.</a> Actually, I contend that only people wrote the bible. I’m basing this on my reading alone.

The best part about the story is that there was no hearing. I wonder why. I think because the people firing him WOULD LOSE. I used to be pretty laid back about religious people as I think that religion can help others, but I’m tired of people hiding behind big words and now just abusing their power because they can’t stand up to the truth.

If the bible was written by God, it should be trivial to demolish Peter Enn’s arguments except for one caveat. HIS ARGUMENT IS PARTLY TRUE.

Here are some questions the committee can’t answer:

1. Why is the bible so poorly written?

2. Who is King James and is the history of the translation a lie?

3. How well do languages, that were formed in different cultures, translate?

4. Why are there many versions of the bible found all over the Middle East?

5. What about the apocrapha.

I’d love to read a transcript of this non-existent trial. Just because something was written by humans does not make it useless. But if they are so insecure about such an clear fact that there were humans with pens jotting down the words in the bible then they demolish their credibility in all things. And that’s a shame because religion should help people NOT LIE TO THEM.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Giving the word “controversial” a new meaning”

  1. equa yona Says:

    The Presby fundamentalists(and all Presbyterians are not fundies) who fired Enn are in deep denial. Without reading Enn’s book though, my guess is that he was repudiating “the long pencil” idea of biblical inspiration. That is, a human was holding the front part of the pencil but God had the control. Its a mocking image obviously. You see, if humans had any real part in the writing, it couldn’t be considere,’infallible’ and “utterly perfect” or whatever the Westminster Confession says. As I said, deep denial.
    As to the questions you pose, How do you mean ‘poorly written’? Which book? Do you mean literary style or consistency or what?
    King James was James the First of England. He commissioned a translation to replace an earlier translation. It was completed in 1611. Fundies know that the Bible is a translation. I don’t understand the question.
    # 3 is an excellent question indeed. VERY difficult to translate and even in the best translations, VERY difficult to grasp the cultural context.
    #4 Also a good point. Different fundies will say different things. ‘ All the texts really only have minor variations’ etc. BS. There are MAJOR differences.
    The Apocrypha are simply texts that the various councils which determined the canon, or list of scriptures to be accepted as true revelation, found to be of value, but not to be included in the readings during liturgy. They don’t impinge on most fundie’s view of the Bible as ‘God Breathed’ (see I Timothy 3:16 NIV).

  2. Leroy Glinchy Says:

    Thanks for the clarifications; they are always appreciated.

    My entire reading of the bible shows it is “poorly written” that is the writing is unclear, clumsy, unbelievable, inconsistent, boring, and sometimes, though not often enough unintentionally funny, also it is intentionally unfunny through and through. I am not an expert, but I try to write well, and if I wrote the bible, I’d do another revision before showing my writing group let alone the world. If you are God then your standards are a bit higher than lazy science fiction writer trying to get a story noticed, I might add.

    Apocrypha is a HUGE problem to fundamentalism because it shows that there was a point when people picked and chose which books went into the bible. I don’t have to write a single word, if I can pick and choose which books go into my holy book, I am the author of that book. If humans are so flawed then how can they pick which books go into the bible? The apocrypha was written by people from the same groups that wrote the bible. It just didn’t make the cut. Even worse, some bibles have some books others don’t. Which one is correct?

    I need more funny!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: